Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:24 am

bucfanclw wrote:Assad has also "been linked to" al-Qaeda. Why do you steadfastly hold on to the belief that he's innocent in all this? Do you get angry when you watch Star Wars because those terrible "Rebels" blew up the military installation in a terrorist attack?

So now you're saying Assad dropped chemical weapons on his own forces?

I still have no idea why you speak in such extremes/hyperbole. Do you have trouble reading, or do you not care to have discussion? I never said Assad was innocent, you are reading into things with a bias and misrepresenting or misunderstanding my comments. I've stated numerous times that I would like to know the evidence since the motivation for the attack seems suspect to me and many others. Quite frankly I'm surprised you are talking this at face value and not the least bit skeptical. Surely you agree there is a distinction between declaring something innocent and wanting to know the evidence of what makes them guilty, right?

Anyways, where did you read SDF controlled Idlib? Just trying to get on the same page here..

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:26 am

It seems Trudeau isn't convinced it was Assad at this time either and would like the facts to be known (novel concept). He's going to lose his NWO membership card if he's not careful (<-- that was joke).

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:04 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:

Brazen331 wrote:I don't see the big deal here. I really can't see how Syria or Russia will want to escalate this. All he did was take out a couple air strips. He did nothing to degrade their air defenses. If it stops the use of chemical weapons it could be a good thing but the most likely scenario is it accomplishes nothing.

As far as leftist talking heads praising Trump for this action...this is something I have not seen. I tuned in briefly to Maddow and Mr. Thrill Up His Leg and they were spinning it as a ploy concocted by Trump to pretend he is not in the pocket of Putin and to divert attention from Russia stealing the election from the Democrats.

The MSM is never going to throw Trump a bone, no matter what.

I'm leaning toward agreeing with you, although we'll see how it plays out over the next couple days/weeks (months/years, too, really); I do find it hard to imagine a scenario where Syria or Russia escalate things, via some relatively immediate militaristic response. I don't think this will mean nuclear war. But, undeniably, we are now further ensnared in another middle eastern mess. You don't just strike another sovereign nation with 100 million dollars worth of missiles and the walk away and say "and let that be a lesson to you". There are forces that want us, the US, at war. There are forces that want a destabilized Syria and ME. Trump has previously held a non-interventionist stance, and this act just showed that despite his talk, he is more than happy to oblige those forces and drag us into another another bullshit conflict at the expense of the american people

at least let the god damn investigation go through. attacking another country off of some pictures? does he know what year we live in? how easy it is to doctor images - how many grassroots propaganda firms there are with dubious funding sources - how even goat ****ing cave dwelling ISIS can create hollywood-level production value videos these days? and if we're going to argue "trump probably got good intelligence from within that was concrete enough to make this move" - well with the splintering of his administration, with Bannon getting kicked out, and people within the IC drawing lines, and know how deep some of those roots go, and how some of them are actors for the now-mainstream-concept, "the deep state"; can Trump even be sure that the intelligence he's receiving is even trustworthy? Idk its just too severe too fast, at a time whether there's just so much instability and potential for manipulation. He saw an opportunity to "be a man" where Obama wasn't and took it. Such a lack of prudence with this whole issue, it just strikes me as nothing more than Trump getting goaded into school yard fight, and the American people are going to be the ones to pay for it

It certainly is not comforting that John McCain and Linzy Graham, Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber, are now all of a sudden in love with Trump. I do hope this is not Clinton bombing an African hospital all over again. You could be right about Trump getting bad info.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Do you think we destroyed any chemical weapons? I'm no expert, but I assume that destroying them would cause the chemicals to be released and I haven't seen any claims of that.

??Why are you asking me? Corsair said Syria has launched airstrikes from the same airfield we hit yesterday and then said Trump didn't accomplish anything. So I asked if they were chemical airstrikes. If not, perhaps Trump accomplished something... Meaning that at least Syria didn't use chemical weapons. If they ever did to begin with is a whole other debate.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

I can't see what the missile attack accomplished other than satisfying the needs of at least some Americans who like to see Americans dropping bombs somewhere....anywhere.

Part of me thinks that this was an opportunity for the administration to gain some points and change the subject from the political quagmire with various facets of the Russian investigation(s).

In terms of what may have actually happened with the chemical attack, there was even some chatter on twitter regarding whether it happened in the first place. Didn't Mark Cernovich or whatever the right wing boob's name is send out some messages regarding the validity of the reports of the attack? I gave up trying to follow the story after a while.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Do you think we destroyed any chemical weapons? I'm no expert, but I assume that destroying them would cause the chemicals to be released and I haven't seen any claims of that.

Sarin weapons typically have 2 agents that need to be properly mixed to disburse the toxic gas. The shelf life of pre-mixed sarin is a lot shorter due to different STP requirements. I think, and I'm trying to remember back to chem 201 over a decade ago, the stuff gets mixed in the weapon by using the spinning of a shell or missile to stir it up. The effects of bombing a cache of the reagents vs weaponizing it would likely result in a much different dispersal area.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:40 pm

In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

Overall, a bare 51 percent majority of U.S. adults support the president’s action in our new poll. In 2013, just 30 percent supported strikes. That swing is driven primarily by GOP partisans. For context, 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error.

This really shows how partisan Dems are. They dropped their support of the SAME situation just because Trump is President. They should be ashamed.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:06 pm

bucfanclw wrote:

In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.

A new Post-ABC poll finds that 86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason. Only 11 percent are opposed.

Overall, a bare 51 percent majority of U.S. adults support the president’s action in our new poll. In 2013, just 30 percent supported strikes. That swing is driven primarily by GOP partisans. For context, 37 percent of Democrats back Trump’s missile strikes. In 2013, 38 percent of Democrats supported Obama’s plan. That is well within the margin of error.

This really shows how partisan Dems are. They dropped their support of the SAME situation just because Trump is President. They should be ashamed.

This goes both ways on multiple issues, for example;

100% of Democrats confirmed Gorsuch in 2006. Only 3/46 would confirm him in 2017. All 3 are up for re-election next year in 'red' states where Trump won by over 10%.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:34 pm

Clearly the Dems are the most partisan group to ever be assembled. I mean, they didn't launch a full scale retaliation to the en bloc vote for a judge they barely heard of getting into an appeals court. A roll call vote to appoint that guy that now has a history of questionable decisions in the appeals court into a position in the highest court in the nation is exactly the same thing. I really don't know why they chose NOW to play their partisan game, other than the fact that Trump is President. Really, it's just like how they wavered on their support for bombing Syria. Great point DN. I'm glad we have your level-headed, unbiased insight.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

The point was both parties have become obstructionists based on partisanship. It was the Republicans when Obama was POTUS, and now the roles have reversed with Trump.

Democrats don't even deny it and openly admit they will resist any and all things on the Trump agenda.

Perhaps I read you're post w/ the WaPo article incorrect, but if you're of the opinion Dems are not partisan than we can agree to disagree. Fwiw I never made the claim Republicans were different in that regard and just saying it goes both ways depending on which has political power at the moment.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

DreadNaught wrote:The point was both parties have become obstructionists based on partisanship. It was the Republicans when Obama was POTUS, and now the roles have reversed with Trump.

Democrats don't even deny it and openly admit they will resist any and all things on the Trump agenda.

Perhaps I read you're post w/ the WaPo article incorrect, but if you're of the opinion Dems are not partisan than we can agree to disagree. Fwiw I never made the claim Republicans were different in that regard and just saying it goes both ways depending on which has political power at the moment.

I don't know what you're upset about. The REAL story here is how Democrats support for strikes against Syria DROPPED just because Trump is President. Why are you talking about Republicans? They've shown to be beyond reproach while the Dems only like things if their guy does them.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

DreadNaught wrote:The point was both parties have become obstructionists based on partisanship. It was the Republicans when Obama was POTUS, and now the roles have reversed with Trump.

Democrats don't even deny it and openly admit they will resist any and all things on the Trump agenda.

Perhaps I read you're post w/ the WaPo article incorrect, but if you're of the opinion Dems are not partisan than we can agree to disagree. Fwiw I never made the claim Republicans were different in that regard and just saying it goes both ways depending on which has political power at the moment.

I don't know what you're upset about. The REAL story here is how Democrats support for strikes against Syria DROPPED just because Trump is President. Why are you talking about Republicans? They've shown to be beyond reproach while the Dems only like things if their guy does them.

Re: Airstrikes Launched in Syria: 4/6/17

Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:53 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:What's wrong with you?

Currently? The fact that I can't find a decent marzen since it's not October, and I guess pointing out the irony of Republicans claiming that Democrats only complain about things since they lost while demonstrating how hyper partisan they are themselves helps pass the time